Colorado Movie Shooting Suspect Charged

[Rylant]

On CNN, I see that James Holmes has been charged in connection with the Batman Premiere Shootings and something struck me as very odd. He has been charge with 24 counts of first degree murder, even though only 12 were killed, and he has been charged with 116 counts of attempted murder which is 2 counts for each of the 58 wounded in the attack. According to CNN, the double charges are to cite "extreme indifference to the value of human life." I am sorry, but does this not seem ridiculous to everyone else?

First of all, if you are going to sit down and plan to kill somebody, don't you think you have a pretty "extreme indifference to the value of human life"? Isn't this why Murder 1 is worse than Murder 2???

As well, let's be real here. The extra charges don't change anything here as far as the outcome of the case. There are 2 possibilities; Either he is going to be executed, or he is going to spend the rest of his life in jail (I guess the third possiblility is that he is found not guilty, but I don't see that happening). The fact that he has been charged twice for each victim doesn't increase the chance that he will get the death penalty, and if he spends the rest of his life in jail, the difference between him spending 340 years behind bars with no chance of parole is really no different than spending 680 years behind bars with no chance of parole.

The biggest problem I have with this, is that I think the justice system in these types of cases needs to be black and white. Stuff like this confuses people. He didn't kill 24 people, so why is he being charged with 24 counts of Murder 1? I think it sets a bad precedent. Were his murders worse than Jeffrey Dahmer's? How about John Wayne Gacy's? Richard Ramirez? Jeffrey Dahmer only recieved 1 murder charge for each of his victims. So did the others I mentioned. If we go down this path, how long is it before somebody REALLY bad comes along and needs to be charged for 3 counts of Murder 1 for each of their victims?

Does anybody know if this has ever happend before? Don't get me wrong; what he did is horrible and he needs to be punished. I am all for charging Holmes for 12 counts of Murder in the First Degree, 58 counts of Attempted Murder, AND some type of charge of "criminal indifference to the value of human life", but to charge him for 2 counts of First Degree Murder for every person that died is ridiculous. I also think that his defense lawyers are going to eat this up...

Rylant

[Bass56]

I guess we would have to look into it further. I'm sure there is an explanation for all of this...I mean, that's pretty random to just double the number of murdered victims to point out the severity of the crime. As for the attempted murder charges, they should be equal to the number of people in the cinema and not just the wounded IMO.

Sadly, the media keeps its focus on this douchebag, meanwhile the victims seemed to have drifted off in our memories. This case should be pretty ''black and white'' as you pointed out. You killed, you get punished. Dragging this nonesense into the courts for an extended period of time is a total joke and a severe insult to all those affected by this tragedy.

[Rajiabu]

The death penalty, pffft! That's an easy escape and isn't justice enough. I want a slow lifelong torture and mental torment. We all die in the end anyway don't we

[wendelclark17]

From my understanding the reason for this is it allows the prosecution to present what amounts to two cases simultaneously, thereby increasing the chances that a jury finds him guilty. In this way the second charge mitigates the importance of establishing intent by saying that, even if he didn't "intend" to kill anyone, shooting in a public place created a "grave risk of death" and thereby doesnt require that intent to kill be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

[Rylant]

From my understanding the reason for this is it allows the prosecution to present what amounts to two cases simultaneously thereby increasing the chances that a jury finds him guilty. In this way the second charge mitigates the importance of establishing intent by saying that even if he didnt "intend" to kill anyone that shooting in a public place created a "grave risk of death" and thereby doesnt require that intent to kill be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

IF that's the case, I think that is ridiculous. Nothing like having the Court System presenting its case "without passion or prejudice". Having the burden of proof of intent lying on the prosecution is a very fundamentally correct way to do things, and they are trying to circumvent that? They are intentionally trying to stack the deck so that they have a better chance of a verdict that they find favourable before it has even gone to trial? Though we all feel as if he is the scum of the Earth, is he still not entitled to a fair trial? How about having some faith that your Justice System will get it right? Horrible...

Rylant

[wendelclark17]

IF that's the case, I think that is ridiculous. Nothing like having the Court System presenting its case "without passion or prejudice". Having the burden of proof of intent lying on the prosecution is a very fundamentally correct way to do things, and they are trying to circumvent that? They are intentionally trying to stack the deck so that they have a better chance of a verdict that they find favourable before it has even gone to trial? Though we all feel as if he is the scum of the Earth, is he still not entitled to a fair trial? How about having some faith that your Justice System will get it right? Horrible...

Rylant

Well the flip side of what the prosecution is doing in this case is that due to the "double jeopardy" clause of the 5th amendment (im pretty sure it would apply in this case) a defendant cannot be tried again for a crime that he/she has previously been acquitted or convicted of. So if the prosecution simply went with the run-of-the-mill murder and attempted murder charges and the defendant was subsequently acquitted he could not have been re-tried on the other charges that require a lesser level of intent to be proven. Again this is my understanding but I'm much more familiar with Canadian and UK law than US law.

[dodospice]

The death penalty, pffft! That's an easy escape and isn't justice enough. I want a slow lifelong torture and mental torment. We all die in the end anyway don't we

I am all for the death penalty but I also think that there are times when people should have to suffer for what they did and not die,death penalty is like a reward to some people and making them live with the guilt (if they have any) and suffer for the rest of there life is a better punishment then simply letting them die.